I am in need of assistance from a qualified expert.
I have recently been convicted of arson in a Danish magistrates court, for a fire that occurred in our family home in September 2002.
I have of course appealed against the conviction as I am genuinely innocent.
The Danish police believed that the motive was an economic one, this was totally disproved in court, ( our assets far outweigh our liabilities even though our house has burnt down). So I was convicted on the strength of the technical "evidence" provided by the Danish police.
Although it is probably not relevant, I would just like to add that I am English, married to a Danish girl, and we have two children. I am an advertising photographer and my wife is a physiotherapist.
The police technician (Eric Jensen) that conducted the technical investigation has the following qualifications; he is an ordinary police officer, with a background as an electrician, and has been on a three week course in arson investigation, followed by subsequent refresher courses.
His "evidence" that convicted me is as follows :
1. Six samples were taken to find out if an accelerant was used, no blind tests were taken. one of the six proved positive for traces of petrol (gasoline) this was test number one, taken ten minutes after the same man had taken samples from my motor mower and a jerry can in the carport. There was two inches of water on the floor of the house, from the fire-fighters hoses and the positive test was taken from the bottom of a burned out piano. I have been told that the gas chromograph in question shows fresh petrol, with no pollution or evaporation of the lighter components, this strikes me as unusual, as just above where the sample was taken (two meters) large steel girders were deformed and were sagging down about 50 cms out of line, I believe this means temperatures in excess of 800 Celsius?.
About one meter from where the positive petrol sample was taken, were the following chemicals, approx. 5-6 litres of turpentine, 4.5 litres of linseed oil, two litres of oil based gloss paint,water based paint, and silicone filler. ( I was in the process of redecorating the room ) all of the furniture was moved to the centre of the room, and was covered with heavy duty plastic, to protect it from paint splashes, dust, etc. the windows in the room were removed for ease of painting. none of the chemicals were present on the gas chromograph.
2. The floor is made of concrete covered with Italian ceramic tiles 30 x30 cms, with no fabric or carpet coverings, in some places these ceramic tiles have cracked and loosened, the police investigator testified in court that this was a sure sign that accelerants were used. He added that the fire had one large point of origin, and was a " typical purposely set fire" (arson attack). He has also stated that for the fire to be this intense, large quantities of petrol must have been used ( 20 litres or more ). I was wearing my underpants and nothing else at the time, wouldn't that much petrol explode?
3. An expert from the Danish Institute of technology, when asked if it was possible to transfer measurable amounts of petrol via mud or water on shoes, testified that it was possible only if large amounts of petrol were present. He stated that shoes would have to be soaked in petrol for this to happen. ( The reason we asked was that a large 4 stroke Honda brush cutter had been knocked down by a fireman's water jet, the plastic petrol pipe had burned through, spilling petrol about 8 meters from the room where the positive result was found).
4. In Denmark, apart from the police, there is only one institution that can investigate this type of incident and that is the government funded Institute of Technology, my lawyer asked them for a meeting in order to obtain an independent evaluation at first they agreed, then a few days before the meeting, they phoned to say they were unable to help, as 90% of their work was for the Danish police. This leaves me with a dilemma, the courts here seem to trust the police 100%, and believe that they are infallible.
The reason that I am writing this is that I need some answers that may help to prove my innocence, so please, if you could find a few moments to answer the following questions I would be extremely grateful
1. Is it normal to take blind tests when testing for accelerants ?
2, What are the chances of cross contamination between the samples from the carport, and the first test in the house?
3. Is it possible that petrol can remain unchanged after 8-9 hours, subjected to extreme temperatures and the above named pollutants?
4. Is the fact that some ceramic tiles are cracked indicative of the fact that accelerants were used?
5. Would 20 litres of petrol explode on ignition ( The ambient temperature that night was 13-15 degrees C.)
6. When asked in court, about the amount of petrol present in the positive sample, the answer was that it was small but measurable,
therefore would it not be possible, for a small amount transferred on a shoe or mud to give a positive result?
7. Kan flashover occur when there are open windows and internal doors?
Nick Halsey
